Chris Jonhston of Sportsnet is claiming that had the Flames signed Ryan O'Reilly to a contract the young center would have had to clear waivers this year to play for the club. Meaning Calgary could have lost a first, a third, and then the player himself to a waiver claim.

This strikes me as implausible. First, because the rule should apply to both teams, not simply the Flames. Ryan O'Reilly signed the same contract with the Avs as he did with the Flames and was a free agent. Why would he have to clear only for the Flames? In addition, I can't see the Flames missing this in their due diligence. I also recall mention previously when we were discussing Karri Ramo that the current CBA erased this provision when it comes to RFA players.

In short, I doubt there's a story here.

UPDATE - according to TSN and Bob MacKenzie, the rule would likely have been interpreted against the Flames, meaning O'Reilly would have been exposed to waivers. I think Calgary would have had an argument in any subsequent greivance, but it's likely it could have been a terrible blow to the franchise had the Avs chosen to wallk away.

All of this rests on a clause depending on the player playing after the NHL season started. So, for instance, had the Flames sent an offer sheet to O'Reilly on Jan 15th when I originally wrote about the topic, this would have been moot.

I suppose it's moot now because Colorado matched the offer, but it seems Calgary dodged a giant bullet. It will be interesting to see if there's any fall-out for the decision-makers as a result. I assume "no" because no actual harm came to the organization, but I guess we'll see.

It's tough to see what was a bold, strategic move blow-up in Feaster's face like this. Sometimes the devil is in the details though. It also shows how hard it is to acquire players like O'Reilly if you aren't able to draft them.

UPDATE 2 - @TMrjmki posted this on twitter today, capturing this whole saga from a Flames fan perspective over the last 24 hours or so:

McKenzie says there is no provision for the Flames to have signed ROR and then not played him...meaning he would have been FORCED onto waivers.

I still think the case is a weird one, but this could have gone completely wrong for the Flames.

In a way you could argue it 'did' go completely wrong for the Flames. It could have been worse had the proposed situation gone through and they were left without their picks or the player; but this mess has sort of spiraled beyond damage control at this point.

I dont think anyone knew about this issue prior to now, other teams included. Word is Canucks gave him an offer sheet (which he rejected) and there wasn't a single article about ROR being waiver eligible for the weeks when everyone was talking about it being a possibility.

I don't know if this has been covered yet, but who in the Flames organization is the "capologist", the legal expert in charge of discerning the ins and outs of the new CBA? Am I right in saying Michael Holditch?

It sounds like Johnston did some leg work on this, but the current issue exists in a very grey area, moreso because the situation is bizarre and unprecedented. it wouldn't surprise me if there's a special addendum or clarification to the language in the CBA to avoid this happening in the future after today.

Good point and the later details support his story. Johnston does deserve full credit for the work he did on this.

I just find it baffling that the CBA would include such measures that stifle any mechanism that so heavily favours player pay increase and movement. I suppose though that it wasn't drafted specifically with mid-season holdouts in mind.

Whether or not another team also overlooked the rule is hardly mitigating. Feaster is paid to know the rules before he signs the offer sheet. Isn't he a lawyer by trade? This should be an event that leads to his dismissal.

As hard as this is for me to say (I am an Oiler fan) the real idiot in this debacle is Colorado. If Colorado had known about their own player's status they would have told every GM that if you offer sheet him, he has to clear waivers. Then there are no Offer Sheets and they would have had O'Reilly signed at a much better rate and much earlier. I can give Calgary a pass (no harm no foul) but I sure would be raking the Colorado's management over the coals for mishandling their own assets.

As hard as this is for me to say (I am an Oiler fan) the real idiot in this debacle is Colorado. If Colorado had known about their own player's status they would have told every GM that if you offer sheet him, he has to clear waivers. Then there are no Offer Sheets and they would have had O'Reilly signed at a much better rate and much earlier. I can give Calgary a pass (no harm no foul) but I sure would be raking the Colorado's management over the coals for mishandling their own assets.

Excellent point. Sherman is showing more and more to be a lacklustre GM, in my view.

As hard as this is for me to say (I am an Oiler fan) the real idiot in this debacle is Colorado. If Colorado had known about their own player's status they would have told every GM that if you offer sheet him, he has to clear waivers. Then there are no Offer Sheets and they would have had O'Reilly signed at a much better rate and much earlier. I can give Calgary a pass (no harm no foul) but I sure would be raking the Colorado's management over the coals for mishandling their own assets.

Obviously a lot of people made a mistake if Bill Daley's interpretation is right. However, if I am employing a GM who proceeded without first clarifying the correct view, two very real scenarios present themselves. First, you don't get the player and you lose the draft picks. Second, in the alternative you lose the draft picks and end up in a legal dispute with Columbus. Once aware that the rules might apply to require that the player is placed on waivers, if I am the Columbus GM of course I am going to try to force the rules to apply in my favour. All of this muddies the waters so much that it is inexcusable that the GM of any team could proceed without more clarity. If the GM of your team is so reckless as to proceed without first knowing of the possible dangers, he cannot be given a pass because others were also reckless. That he is lucky that Colorado matched does not mean he wasn't reckless in the first place.

Interesting how 24 hours ago Feaster was being lauded by fans and reporters for his balls and his ingenuity. I guess if it sounds too good to be true, it is. Dodged a bullet here, but I imagine Feaster's reputation here has taken a huge hit. I was a defender of his yesterday, but today... man, this could have been disastrous.

What a PR nightmare for this already beleaguered franchise. Feasted needs to own this right away. I am proud to be a Flames fan but this is ridiculous. Ownership continues to spend up to the cap but as with any corporation, experts are hired to know this type of thing. When something like an offer sheet arises, shouldn't the league have their own legal team to protect the integrity of the teams as well. Someone made reference to the CFL, but they don't have a monopoly on drafting deceased players or things just as embarrassing. The press release claims this mess is due to "interpretation" issues and that there will be no further comment. Further to that, the press release indicates the player agent shared the Flames interpretation. Either way, it was in his interest to get this resolved. He still gets his cut.

At least this shows there were aware of the issue and elected to proceed in any event. You might want to question if it was worth the risk. More importantly if both sides saw the issue the question I have is why didn't they try to confirm the league's position first?

The Flames just released a statement saying, to paraphrase, "We disagree with the NHL's interpretation, and the O'Reilly camp agreed with our interpretation."

And there it is, like I said previously in the comments, the wording under the MOU is VERY vague at best. The wording on the MOU can easily go either way and depending on how it would be argued very easily interpreted that he doesn't need to go through waivers(Still my interpretation of it).

A lot of people want to jump on the Flames and their terrible management, but quite honestly, it was a very stupid move to offer the offer sheet to ROR when it was just the agent and the Flames that agreed on the wording, honestly they should have waited 1 day and got an advanced ruling from the NHL, cause they could have come out really badly in this.

"Flames released a statement saying their interpretation of the rule is different and would have argued it. Since it's moot, want to move on"

You bet they want to move on... NO WAY they would have gambled a first and a third if their was even a hint that ROR would have to clear waivers. Statement is pure PR, they got caught with their pants down pure and simple.

To be completely fair, I don't think anyone really understood how this part of the rules would work in this particular situation. And that includes the people who wrote the rules in the first place.

No one in their right mind would explicitly write a rule that would mean that giving an offer sheet on a player would result in you losing your picks and getting the player waived and taken away, and even if they weren't in their right mind such a disastrous scenario would be outlined very well.

I expect this portion of the rules will be amended soon (one way or another).